documentaries101

[documentaries101]

[documentaries101]

The Death of Victoria(my POV)

The death of David and Jackie’s oldest daughter Victoria came as a shock to the couple on the 6th of June 2015. Maybe they were to blinded by things like botox sessions, shopping sprees and multi-million dollar businesses to pay attention to the wellbeing of their daughter and the fact that she was depressed. Maybe if family played a bigger part in their lives, Victoria would still be alive today.

http://people.com/celebrity/victoria-siegel-autopsy-cause-of-death-was-methadone-sertraline-toxicity/

[documentaries101]

Final Scene

In the final scene of the documentary, there’s a clip filmed from inside the 65 million dollar house, of a firework display happening from across the street. I think the fireworks are a metaphor for the rich life. The bright shiny sparks of light depict the beauty of being rich and being able to afford stuff you don't really need.But if you get to close to fireworks you could get burnt, meaning becoming too reliant on money for happiness could end badly, as in the case of the Seigal family.

[documentaries101]

The Rich vs The Middle-class

This documentary also gives the audience an insight into the rich and middle class. After the recession, it is clear that the Siegal family are suffering, they have a big house with nobody to clean it, they aren't able to finish the construction of their 65 million dollar house, they have to start flying commercial and they have to start looking after themselves. The harsh reality is starting to kick in. On the other hand, you have the Phillipene nannies, the working class. In an interview with one of the nannies, she explains how she asked Jackie if it was okay for her to live in her kid's tinny playhouse in the yard. She makes it clear that she loves her little space and is grateful to have a place to stay, she describes the playhouse as her ‘get away’ from the kids. She also tells us about how she left home eleven years ago, misses her family and has grown attached to the kids. The contrast between the rich/spoilt life and the working class life really makes the audience think twice about how much the little things matter.If a huge house, a pool, two dogs and over ten bicycles are still not enough to satisfy a rich family, then what is?

[documentaries101]

Queen of Versailles a Fly on the Wall Documentary

The Queen of Versailles documentary gives the world an insight into two billionaires lives and the rise and fall of their wealth. The use of candid filming allows the audience to feel as if they are stepping directly into these peoples lives without them knowing thus the term “Fly on the Wall” (being there but not being seen). The private one on one interviews with Jackie and David Siegel as well as their kids, give the audience an insight of how they feel on a more intimate level. For example, there's a scene where the director sits both Jackie and David down separately and asks them the same question, on how they feel about each other. Through the process, we are able to find out that David feels like his wife is childish and that their marriage doesn't give him strength whereas his wife reveals that she loves him, he gives her strength and would stick with him through thick and thin.This shows the strain debt can have on a marriage and family. Another thing that strongly shows this is the scene in which Jackie brings David dinner into his office/sitting room. In the scene, David is shown accusing Jackie of leaving a door open, this causes Jackies daughter to overhear the conversation and step in to protect her mother. The scene also explores the bond Victoria (eldest blood daughter) has with her mum.

[documentaries101]

Fly on the Wall Documentary

A fly on the wall documentary is a documentary style whereby the filming is done in an unobtrusive manner. The cameras are there filming but subjects whose lives are being filmilmed pretend they are not there.Most of these documentaries include one on one interviews with the subjects involved.

[documentaries101]

What is The Queen Of Versailles

Queen of Versailles is a fly on the wall documentary directed by Lauren Greenfield about a multi-millionaire couple. The documentary follows their lives through the highs and lows, from being rich to losing their estates worth millions including a 65 million dollar mansion after the great recession in 2007-2008. The documentary was released on the 7th of September 2012.

[documentaries101]

Queen of Versailles

[documentaries101]

Being Biased

One of the major problems programme makers face when trying to find where the truth lies, is trying not to be too biased towards one side.For example, in the documentary, there are more facts to prove the Friedmans were guilty rather than innocent.One of them is the child pornography found around Arnolds Friedman's house. Another one is him admitting to molesting his brother and getting excited whilst observing a father bouncing his son on his lap.In the documentary, there is more visual evidence supporting the Friedmans guilt than proving the law corrupt.

This is similar to the previous documentary The Imposter.The Imposter, like this documentary, both observe different sides of the same story through the use of interviews and archive footage. The Friedmans showed family videos to visually prove the innocence of their father, whereas the imposter used archive footage to prove that Frédéric Bourdin isn't who he said he was. in one case archive is used to prove innocence and in the other, its used to prove guilt and cluelessness. The imposter starts off by being biassed towards Frederic, but our opinions are soon changed towards the end of the documentary when the facts provided are backed up by solid evidence. Evidence observed by the viewers themselves. This documentary begins with archive footage of the Friedmans filming their dad at first the audience is given a glimpse of who Arnie is (kind, talented loving father) but as the documentary progresses, the evidence against him builds up. The only piece of evidence the brothers have to help their dad and brother is family vlogs, but that may not be able to tell us who Arnie and  Jesse really are.This changes the point of view on who to support (law or Arnie/Jesse Friedman).

[documentaries101]

Guilty or Innocent

The factor that makes it hard to decide whether the Friedmans are guilty or not, is the lack of truth(hardcore evidence). There are many facts, like the fact that Jesse and Arnold did molest those children, but there’s not enough truth(evidence) to back it up. The Friedmans said they admitted to it so that they wouldn't have to go through a trial, but some people think otherwise.The documentary appears biased towards the law due to the admission of guilt by the Friedmans, the interviews with the victims and the interviews with Arnolds then wife. But even the interviews are said to be influenced by the police. This is seen during an interview with the victims. Both of them said that they had no recall of anything happening until they were put under hypnosis. Some of the victims even said the law was influencing their answers by getting them, as easily influenced children, to say what they want to hear.

[documentaries101]

What is Catching the Friedmans

Catching the Friedmans is a documentary directed by Andrew Jarecki. It was released in 2007 following the child molestation case that was investigated in the late 1980’s.The documentary follows Arnold (father) and Jesse (son) Friedman who confessed to molesting thirteen kids during computer lessons that took place at their residence.

[documentaries101]

Capturing The Friedmans

[documentaries101]

The Photographs & Tape

I agree with Werners choices because, despite not showing the audio recording or pathologists photographs, he and the coroner both described them. The coroner even gave a description of how the bodies looked after the attack and Werner explained the audio to us during an interview with Timothy’s ex-girlfriend. In the interview he is listening to the audio tape with headphones on, he repeats some of what he is hearing, including the phrase “Get away, get away”, based on his body language he is clearly affected by what he is hearing. After listening to the tape, he takes the headphones off and tells Timothy’s ex-girlfriend that she must “never” listen to the tape or look at the coroner’s photos. Werner did this to create a mental image amongst viewers. Making the audience imagine what the murder scene would have looked like keeps their imaginations active and making them think the worst of what could have happened. Another reason for Warner not showing the audio recording is to keep the attention of the audience constant throughout the movie. Him stating that he has access to the audio and pathologist’s photographs from the beginning of the documentary, makes the audience think that he is going to show it at the end or at some point in the movie. Showing it would have derived maximum effect, but his choice kept the audience hooked and got them thinking whilst still achieving maximum effect. He got his point across without having to put the gruesome recording and pictures in, and he did so cleverly by using the coroner and himself as a medium between the tape, pictures and the audience.

[documentaries101]

What makes it different

Like Bowling for Columbine and Supersize Me, this documentary is quite unique because, it’s centred on both directors, Timothy Treadwell and Werner Herzog.It’s as if both directors are having conversations through the documentary.On one hand we have Timothy documenting his experience in the wilderness, and on the other hand, we have Werner the director of the documentary commenting on Timothy’s work and styles. In most docudramas or movies, the director is behind the camera or in the shadows. But in this one, they are heavily involved.  

[documentaries101]

What is Grizzly Man?

Grizzly Man is a documentary written and directed by Werner Herzog. It was released in September 2005. The documentary involves Timothy Treadwell, a man who wanted to protect and live among wild grizzly bears in Alaska. Grizzly Man follows the events leading up to him and his girlfriend Amie Huguenards death in 03/10/ 2003. 

[documentaries101]

Grizzly Man

[documentaries101]

Centering the Director

Like Bowling for Columbine,  Super Size Me has the director as the focal point in the documentary. Michael Moore and  Morgan Spurlock have similar approaches to documentary making, but not exactly the same characteristics. Moore is more straightforward and blunt than Spurlock. Moore pointed fingers at people like Charlton Heston and approached the matter of him encouraging gun ownership rather vigorously. Spurlock also calls out some brand names on certain subjects but doesn’t approach the matter as bluntly as Moore does(showing up at Heston's house with a picture of a late girl who was a victim of gun violence).Another thing Moore incorporates is humour, this tones down the seriousness of the subject. This is shown in the intro scene at the bank where he creates a bank account to get a free gun. In the scene, he indirectly mocks the bank. Spurlock doesn’t incorporate comedy like Moore, his documentary is based more on facts and figures rather than mockery, whereas Moore incorporates all three aspects into his documentaries.